Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Where does Psalm 33 say God's word was accomplished quickly? 'It stood fast' doesn't mean 'it happened fast'.That isn't true and you did not pay attention to the details in the OP.
"By the word of the LORD were the heavens made...For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast."
God did NOT take billions of years to make His creation. Why would He?
The age of the earth is irrelevant as far as what the text is saying. I'm simply offering a meaningful understanding of the text for what it says rather than reading into the text what's not there.
So your contention is that Luke's genealogy demands a literal understanding of each person? Why exactly?
I would counter with the same. Please stop stretching and twisting the Bible to conform to your chosen ideology. Let Scripture speak for itself, it's God's word and deserves that respect.
I would suggest you read Genesis, Chapter 1.
How many days are in a week? Why do you suppose that is?
Exactly! The whole point of listing the chronologies is to establish Jesus' identity and rightful claim as the Christ. If ancestors were left out of the list, the chain would be broken, and the legal claim would be null and void.
Right. You've got it all the way, friend. It takes a satanic blindness not to see the import of this.;
If you could perhaps not imply that your brothers and sisters of Christ are somehow associated with the devil that'd be swell. Thanks.
-CryptoLutheran
As has been stated before the genealogies are of greater importance than what you are giving them. Matthew is making the point that Jesus is King of the Jews and that he is part of the promise to Abraham made in Genesis 22, And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. Luke on the other hand wants to show that Christ is for all so he traces Jesus' lineage back to God who created all things.You show us that you are led by the Holy Spirit and a true child of Christ by acknowleding the importance of His family lineage as the heir to the throne of David and that that lineage is real, legitimate, and valid as a legal claim. Matthew & Luke certainly thought that it was.
Jesus is making a theological point about marriage here, not stating that God created one way or another, you are ripping the verse right out of it's context.You show us that you are led by the Holy Spirit and a true child of Christ by acknowledging Mark 10:6 and that man could NOT have been present 14 billion yrs ago in your so-called evolutionary beginning of the universe.
And I Praise the Lord for that.Until then I will hold in reservation what I think of your salvation. That's not up to me anyway.
As has been stated before the genealogies are of greater importance than what you are giving them. Matthew is making the point that Jesus is King of the Jews and that he is part of the promise to Abraham made in Genesis 22, And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. Luke on the other hand wants to show that Christ is for all so he traces Jesus' lineage back to God who created all things.
Jesus is making a theological point about marriage here, not stating that God created one way or another, you are ripping the verse right out of it's context.
...since the beginning they have been male and female, nothing about specific adam and eve...
Not to mention that there is no reason why teaching on marriage has to be related to history.
It doesn't matter who he was talking about, he is structuring a theology of what marriage is, if they were created male and female at the beginning then why do we have the exclamation of Adam when Eve is created, "At last! here is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh." Even if you take him literally at his word did Adam and Eve drown because they were created before God had separated the waters from the waters with the heavens cf Gen 1:6-8, obviously Jesus is both not speaking literally and the way he frames it can be reconciled with a literary framework interpretation far more easily than with literalist creationism.Really? So if Jesus wasn't talking about Adam and Eve then what couple existed at the beginning...14 billion yrs. ago? Jesus statement was that they (whoever they are) were created at the beginning ...right? So if they (whoever they were) were created at the beginning 14 billion yrs ago then who were they and how did they survive in space just after the uh, (the Big Bang?) whatever happened?
I have given you straight answers.What this person does not grasp is that this is Orwellian mind control. It is a concept that keeps a person from thinking more deeply than the seeded error will let them think. You won't get a straight answer from this person because he/she won't let themselves go there. Certainly not on this issue.
I said that there is no reason it has to be based in history. If you want to believe that it's your perogative, there is nothing that says we need take it as such.Oh, of course not! Just because he/she says so. We should ignore what Jesus said about the creation of the male and female and it's reality in history or that marriage was based upon what God did in bringing Adam & Eve together. Marriage, we are told, is based on a mythical tale..............just because the falling angel meets rising ape and those who agree think that the universe is 14 billion yrs old tell us so.
You're the one positing that, I refer you up where I address this assertion.Hmm, I wonder who the lucky couple was that existed in outer space (without space suits, I presume) some 14 billion yrs. ago.
I am not forsaking God's Word, I look to Christ daily to see me through, although you happen to be one who'd take 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." To be talking about Scripture and thereby elevate it to the status of God, The Bible is not my God. Do not capitalise word when referring to the ScripturesBut this is how ridiculous things get for those who forsake God's Word and force an unbliblical, illogical interpretation to the plain meaning of scripture.
progmonk has been looking at what Jesus was actually talking about in the passage, but clearly progmonk must be the one stretching truth like a rubber band for not accepting out of context ideas you want to read into the passage."I have given you straight answers."
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. He plays with eternal truth like its a rubber band that he can stretch any way he wants.
Goodnight all!
One piece of evidence from fossil record might not be convincing enough,
but now we have 2 -- Sudden Appearance and Stasis.
Apart from these, results from other scientific research (especially DNA) are in conflict with Naturalistic Evolution. I think this can't be coincidence.
I believe a person has to be very not up-to-date in scientific information
or close-minded to remain a naturalistic evolutionist.
"The evidence of biology clear points to stasis not evolution. Rather than revealing organisms gradually evolving into other forms, the fossil record speaks of "SUDDEN APPEARANCE" and "STASIS"."
(excerpted from "Creation, Evolution, and Modern Science", by Kerby Anderson, Raymond G. Bohlin)
You forgot the other two pieces, though: gradual appearance, and change, both of which also appear in the fossil record.One piece of evidence from fossil record might not be convincing enough,
but now we have 2 -- Sudden Appearance and Stasis.
If it were true it would be interesting, but it's not. At any rate, I haven't heard of any research in DNA that is in conflict with naturalistic evolution (no caps needed, by the way). What did you have in mind?Apart from these, results from other scientific research (especially DNA) are in conflict with Naturalistic Evolution. I think this can't be coincidence.
I'm sorry, but this is getting a bit silly. There are thousands of scientists in a range of areas of biology -- e.g. paleontology, genetics, developmental biology -- who routinely do research that only makes sense in terms of evolution. According to you, all of these thousands of individuals are either unaware or ignoring the scientific evidence against evolution. Is that really plausible, when these are the same individuals who are actually doing the scientific research? Do you honestly think you know what's going on in biology better than biologists?I believe a person has to be very not up-to-date in scientific information
or close-minded to remain a naturalistic evolutionist.
You forgot the other two pieces, though: gradual appearance, and change, both of which also appear in the fossil record.
When either side of the debate is using fossil evidence, I think it is worth bearing in mind that we have excavated such an incredibly small area of the world that we are bound to make further discoveries in the future.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?